Amazon.com Widgets

As featured on p. 218 of "Bloggers on the Bus," under the name "a MyDD blogger."

Thursday, August 18, 2005

Russ Feingold, Alone Again (Naturally)

Senator Feingold was the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act. Now he's the first Senator to propose a specific deadline for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq:

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) called on the White House yesterday to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of next year and criticized fellow Democrats for being too "timid" in challenging the Bush administration's war policy.

Although critical of the administration's handling of the war, many leading Democratic lawmakers have been reluctant to press for a concrete timetable for withdrawal, agreeing with Bush that it could harm the war effort. Many congressional Democrats voted in 2002 to grant Bush authority to invade Iraq, but their liberal base has grown increasingly vocal in opposition to the war, making it difficult to send a consensus message. But as Bush's poll numbers have fallen, some Democrats have grown increasingly outspoken.

In a telephone interview from Wisconsin, Feingold said he has heard a wave of public disenchantment at 15 town hall meetings so far during the August recess, leading him to propose a Dec. 31, 2006, deadline.

"There's a deepening feeling of dismay in the country about the way things are going in Iraq," Feingold said. He rejected Bush's assertion that a deadline would make it easier for insurgents to simply hang on. "I think he's wrong. I think not talking about endgames is playing into our enemies' hand."


Whaddya know, a politician that actually listens to his constituents. I'm sure the Right will call that a flip-flop. The Senator from Wisconsin can explain this one himself:

Even this June, when Feingold introduced a resolution in Senate that called on the president to clarify the mission in Iraq and lay out "a plan and timeframe for accomplishing that mission," the senator did not call for a deadline for withdrawing troops.

Back then, Feingold said he was not dictating "deadlines or dates certain . . . because drawing up timeframes is best and most appropriately left to the Administration, in consultation with military leaders."

Now, however, Feingold has changed his mind and believes a deadline is necessary.

"I offered a resolution and tried to engage colleagues and asked the president to give us a vision," he said. "The president has simply refused to give us a mission or timeframe to bring the troops home."

Feingold also said that many within his own party are afraid of demanding a withdrawal of troops from Iraq for fear of being branded unpatriotic or anti-military.

"I call what I am doing breaking the taboo," Feingold said. "The senators have been intimidated and are not talking about a timeframe. We have to make it safe to go in the water and discuss this. A person shouldn't be accused of not supporting troops just because we want some clarity on our mission in Iraq."


In short, we tried to play it your (Bush's) way, you stonewalled, and now we'll play it our way. This undercuts that whole "Democrats have no ideas" canard. It takes someone with courage to stand up and say this kind of thing. I've said for quite a while that we've run out of any good ideas in Iraq. A specific deadline would at least bring some urgency to training Iraqi troops. It gives us time to get a UN peacekeeping force mobilized if the country still has security issues at that time. It would let Iraqis know that we don't have long-term designs on their country. There are downsides (the "insurgents will wait us out" argument has some merit, although I can't see them quieting down if we stay either), but at least it's another option. We've gone almost 3 years with "stay the course." It's not working. The American people see this.

I've been on the Feingold '08 bandwagon for a little while. It's early yet, but this is a strong position, and a principled one. Feingold speaks his mind and speaks his personal truth. Many think that his upcoming divorce precludes a run for the White House. Yeah, because the Reagan and Jane Wyman thing never happened. Divorce in America is regrettable but common. I oughta know; I'm divorced. It's not a dirty word.

Feingold is on the right side on the war (not just in my opinion, but in the opinion of the American people, over 2/3 of who support withdrawal by the end of next year), he's a champion of civil liberties (something that ought to appeal to sought-after Western independents), he believes in PAYGO (pay-as-you-go fiscal discipline), he co-authored pioneering campaign finance reform (a bill that could do more, but was at least a start), and he believes in ending the disparate influence of corporate lobbyists. In short, his issues are my issues.

We're a long ways away, but right now Feingold has my vote.

|